The identification of objects that are relatively fungible, but possess minute yet important nuances or details, can be a difficult, tedious and time consuming affair. As will be readily recognized by those familiar with such enterprises, a failure to accurately identify such objects with regularity can have unintended or undesirable consequences.
The identification process commonly used by locksmiths when making duplicate copies of a key is illustrative of such difficulties. The art of key replication is well known, insofar as the key intended for duplication (the master key) is simply copied on to an appropriately identified key-blank utilizing any number of different systems known in the art. In doing so, it is of the utmost importance that each master key be copied onto the proper key-blank so as to prevent numerous adverse consequences caused by reproducing a master key onto an inappropriate key-blank. However, choosing the correct key-blank can be difficult even for experts in the field.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of key-blanks, and many blanks are not readily distinguished from others. Identifying the correct key-blank for use in duplication involves selecting a blank from hundreds or even thousands of possibilities, where differences between key-blanks may be very subtle. These hard-to-notice subtleties significantly increase the level of difficulty for all operators of such key replication systems, both inexperienced trainees and experts alike.
Once a key-blank is chosen, it goes through a cutting process. The typical cutting process simply traces the profile of the master key onto the key blank, such that the key-blank will exactly match (within the error limits and accuracy of the tracing machine) the original master key. Normally, a mechanically linked cutting wheel actually cuts into the key-blank, while it mimics the movement of the tracer as the tracer moves longitudinally along the profile of the master key. If the incorrect key-blank is provided during this process, the key-blank being formed into the duplicate key may not possess the correct longitudinal length, thereby causing a failure. When this type of failure occurs, the entire process of selecting a key-blank for replication and then mechanically cutting the key must begin again. Worse still, if the blank has the proper length but does not possess the appropriate thickness, contour, groove or other traits, the failure may not be discovered until the key is actually inserted into the lock.
Businesses that offer key cutting services are often times not staffed by experienced locksmiths. Instead, employees are usually trained to “eyeball” what is thought to be the correct blank and then cut a duplicate key. Such informal and imprecise key-blank identification invariably increases the rate of failures for the duplication process.
These failures often occur, at the expense of the industry and to the extreme dismay of the key holder. An accurate, easy-to-use key-blank identification system that increases the accuracy and efficiency of key replication and duplication would be welcomed by the industry.
Not surprisingly, numerous attempts have been made to improve identification systems and/or key replication systems. Generally speaking, these efforts can be grouped in two basic categories: image based methods and physical recognition systems.
The image-based methods essentially rely upon optical devices to create a digital representation of the key. This digitized image is then manipulated for identification and other purposes. Examples of these systems are shown in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,807,042; 5,908,273; 6,064,747 and 6,406,227. Notably, each of these systems require specific arrangements cameras, lasers and/or scanning devices, in conjunction with a computer processor, to achieve their respective purposes, thereby increasing complexity and cost.
In contrast, physical recognition systems are similar to the previously stated method of “eyeballing” a key-blank. As seen in U.S. Pat. No. 5,351,409, a set of identification boxes is required to assist the user in a systematic comparison of prospective key-blanks. Such key-blank boxes can be bulky, difficult to update and inconvenient to store and maintain. Furthermore, the operator's judgment is still vital to the process, insofar as the ultimate result is directly tied to the operator's specific sequential determinations in comparing the key blade with the standard blanks that are provided. Most significantly, even with dedicated key blank boxes (which typically have test slots into which the original key is inserted to check for a proper fit), the minute differences in some blanks may still permit the original to fit properly into the wrong key blank's test slot, thereby resulting in a failure of the identification system.
The shortcomings of these previously known systems are numerous. In both cases above (i.e., image-based or physical recognition systems), specialized equipment is required. Moreover, these previously known methods do not provide for any automated tracking of inventory, nor do they readily permit systematic tracking of other variables that may be of interest. Further, none of the previously known systems appear to be readily adaptable to non-key-blank identification applications, nor do they seem to be allow for the use of common consumer computer systems and other similar construction materials (such as off-the-shelf personal computers, personal digital assistants, LEDs, etc.). Finally, to the extent that many of these systems must be operated by skilled technicians or specially trained employees, the consumer feels disconnected from the process and, in all likelihood, will feel even more annoyed and dismayed if a failure occurs in using these systems.